The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the franchise agreement.
Under the franchise agreement, the franchisee must purchase exclusively from suppliers specified by the franchisor. The franchisee states that the franchisor already had problems with two prescribed suppliers at the time, but did not communicate this to the franchisee when the franchise contract was signed. The franchisee invokes fraud and error and nullifies the concluded franchise agreement on those grounds. The franchisor disputes the alleged problems with the prescribed suppliers. The Court ruled that if the franchisor indeed had problems with the exclusive suppliers, the franchisor should have communicated this to the person who was about to become a franchisee.
The franchisee believes that the burden of proof regarding the problems with the prescribed suppliers lies with the franchisor. The Court of Appeal ruled that the franchisee invoked a lack of will and stated that there were grounds to nullify the franchise agreement. Based on the main rule, this entails that he must prove the facts on which he is based, which have been disputed by the franchisor with reasons. The franchisee therefore has the burden of proof.
It is not inconceivable that the franchisee might have had a different position of proof if the Acquisition Fraude Act had been invoked. After all, there is an explicit possibility to reverse the burden of proof if there is a sufficient suspicion of deception.
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Article Franchise+ – Franchisees enjoy the same protection as employees and commercial agents with regard to a non-competition clause – dated 7 May 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
It often happens that, especially by franchisees, the validity of a post-contractual non-compete clause is considered too lightly.
The support agreement for the Retail sector in this Corona crisis – dated 15 April 2020 – mr. K. Bastian
On April 10, 2020, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, together with a number of landlords, retailers and banks, reached a support agreement.
Court rules that corona crisis does not constitute force majeure – dated April 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
If payment cannot be made due to a decrease in income, then there is not always a force majeure situation.
Important information for directors of franchisees associations: Online meetings and decision-making in times of corona – dated April 10, 2020 – mr. J. Strong
Emergency law provisions for legally valid decisions without physically meeting within the association structure.
Unilateral amendment of the franchise agreement by the franchisor allowed? – dated April 7, 2020 – mr. K. Bastian
Is the franchisor allowed to implement certain announced changes/adaptations to the formula on the basis of the franchise agreement agreed between the parties?
Legal scientific publication: “Collective actions of franchisees” – dated April 2, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
An article by mr. Alex Dolphin